Hebegebe
Well-Known Member
But why have judges agreed with the Government that what I do is illegal then?
Thread for last rebel
- Thread starter Hebegebe
- Start date
zigzagzig
Well-Known Member
I don't know what you're referring to but I suspect you've misinterpreted it in the same way that you've misinterpreted the Hunting Act.
Hebegebe
Well-Known Member
well having been told by defra I had to shoot the deer I flush out I took the Government to court and they argued in court that I did have to shoot the deer and the judges agreed with them.
In three seperate cases actually High Court, Court of appeal and the House of Lords
soon the case will be heard in Strasbourg.
So are you sating that My barrister has misinterpreted the judgement or that the judges and the Government have misinterpreted the law?
In three seperate cases actually High Court, Court of appeal and the House of Lords
soon the case will be heard in Strasbourg.
So are you sating that My barrister has misinterpreted the judgement or that the judges and the Government have misinterpreted the law?
Bunce
Well-Known Member
The Hunting Act clearly bans all flushing out and stalking of wild mammals with dogs unless strict conditions are adhered to.
In short dogs may only be used to flush out wild mammals if it is to shoot them or to kill them with a bird of prey.
In short dogs may only be used to flush out wild mammals if it is to shoot them or to kill them with a bird of prey.
Hebegebe
Well-Known Member
This is getting ridiculous!
First zigzag assures me it is perfectly legal for me to chase deer with a pack of dogs then you come on and say it isn't!
Which is it????
First zigzag assures me it is perfectly legal for me to chase deer with a pack of dogs then you come on and say it isn't!
Which is it????
zigzagzig
Well-Known Member
As I understand it you were one of the so-called "human rights claimants" who argued that 1984 Act was inconsistent with the European Convention on Human Rights. There were also the "EC claimants" in the same case who argued that the Act was inconsistent with the treaty which established the European Union.
Yes indeed, there were three separate cases, in the High Court, Court of Appeal and the House of Lords. And you lost each time, leaving a huge legal bill for the CA members.
I'm afraid I don't understand how this helps your argument in this thread.
Yes indeed, there were three separate cases, in the High Court, Court of Appeal and the House of Lords. And you lost each time, leaving a huge legal bill for the CA members.
I'm afraid I don't understand how this helps your argument in this thread.
Hebegebe
Well-Known Member
Because I argued that it was against my human rights to have to shoot the deer I flushed out and the Government argued both that I had to shoot the deer I flushed out and that it was within its rights to make me and they won the case.
The court looked at my activities in detail and ruled they were illegal because I used more than two dogs and refused to shoot the deer.
The court looked at my activities in detail and ruled they were illegal because I used more than two dogs and refused to shoot the deer.
Bunce
Well-Known Member
It's really a matter of weighing up the pros and cons from an animal welfare point of view. Shooting a deer is in all cases less of an evil than any chasing.
For that reason it is justified to require deer be shot dead to prevent any possibility of a chase
For that reason it is justified to require deer be shot dead to prevent any possibility of a chase
zigzagzig
Well-Known Member
Where do the judges say that in the House of Lords? I've got the judment online but can't be bothered to read it. Perhaps you can say which judge said this and I can read just that opinion.
Hebegebe
Well-Known Member
well yiu have to look through all the judgements. Right at the start the Government argued what I did was illegal and that they had the roight to make it illegal.
That's what my case was concerning my right to flush out bdeer without shooting them.
The courts upheld the Hunting Act.
That's what my case was concerning my right to flush out bdeer without shooting them.
The courts upheld the Hunting Act.
Bunce
Well-Known Member
You should be very careful when dealing with Giles.
He tries to get antis to argue that it is legal to deliberately flush out deer. This is in order to weaken the Hunting Act.
He tries to get antis to argue that it is legal to deliberately flush out deer. This is in order to weaken the Hunting Act.
Hebegebe
Well-Known Member
If Zigzag wants to argue that it is legal to flush out and chase deer then let him.
I am sure that would be very much welcomed by the hunts but there you go.
Unfortunatly it is generally thought that it isn;t.
I am sure that would be very much welcomed by the hunts but there you go.
Unfortunatly it is generally thought that it isn;t.
zigzagzig
Well-Known Member
You were one of the appellants in the case. I think you would agree that the issue of flushing deer is one which has occupied you on a quite fanatical basis for some years now. I therefore find it hard to believe that you wouldn't be able to quote chapter and verse a judgment from the highest court in the land which - apparently - shares your interpretation of the Hunting Act.
Unless you can point to where the law lords say what you claim they say, I'm afraid I can't see the point of drawing attention to yet another failed and costly legal case for the CA.
Unless you can point to where the law lords say what you claim they say, I'm afraid I can't see the point of drawing attention to yet another failed and costly legal case for the CA.
zigzagzig
Well-Known Member
As I've said several time now, in my opinion it depends. If the Quorn for example flushed out a fox with a view to killing it, I think the courts would consider that hunting.
When a person scares a deer away from his apple blossom using his pooch, I'm not convinced that's hunting and therefore the Act doesn't apply.
When a person scares a deer away from his apple blossom using his pooch, I'm not convinced that's hunting and therefore the Act doesn't apply.
Hebegebe
Well-Known Member
But there doesn't need to be any intention to kill the animal for the law to be broken.
That's what Defra advise anyhow.
You seem to think you know better but I am not so sure.
Surely if there had to be intention to kill then the law should make that explicit.
That way the hunts could carry on chasing wildlife as much as they wanted.
That's what Defra advise anyhow.
You seem to think you know better but I am not so sure.
Surely if there had to be intention to kill then the law should make that explicit.
That way the hunts could carry on chasing wildlife as much as they wanted.
Hebegebe
Well-Known Member
I'm nit a fanatic Zigzag It's fu ckwitted hunt sabs who lop peoples heads off with gyrocopter blades that are fanatics.
All I want to do is use dogs to flush out deer.
There's nothing fanatical about that mate.
All I want to do is use dogs to flush out deer.
There's nothing fanatical about that mate.
zigzagzig
Well-Known Member
I've explained as patiently as I can how I think the Act should be interpreted. You disagree and claim the Law Lords, no less, agree with your interpretation. Very well, show me where.
Hebegebe
Well-Known Member
I've told you where the case was heard in the high court. The govt argued what I did was illegal unless I shiot the deer. The judges agreed with the govt the case was appealed and lost.
Read the govts testimony and the judgements if you wish ffs!
Read the govts testimony and the judgements if you wish ffs!
JanetGeorge
Well-Known Member
In YOUR opinion! I'm damn sure the deer wouldn't agree! Have you SEEN a badly shot deer, several days later?? I have - it wasn't pretty!
Eagle_day
Well-Known Member
Than a gut-shot deer that takes days to die? If you really are Bunce from POWA, such twisted compassion doesn't surprise me, otherwise ....
zigzagzig
Well-Known Member
"I've told you where the case was heard in the high court. The govt argued what I did was illegal unless I shiot the deer. The judges agreed with the govt the case was appealed and lost.
Read the govts testimony and the judgements if you wish ffs! "
I'm politely asking you to say which Law Lord supported your contention that merely shooing away deer from a copse with a dog contravened the Hunting Act 2004. I've browsed through the judgments and can see nothing about this. Was it your brief who told you the judges shared your interpretation i.e. the same one who lost the case for you then pocketed his fee?
Read the govts testimony and the judgements if you wish ffs! "
I'm politely asking you to say which Law Lord supported your contention that merely shooing away deer from a copse with a dog contravened the Hunting Act 2004. I've browsed through the judgments and can see nothing about this. Was it your brief who told you the judges shared your interpretation i.e. the same one who lost the case for you then pocketed his fee?
Hebegebe
Well-Known Member
and I've politely explained to you that my claim was regarding my right not to shoot the deer I folush and as you know I lost the claim meaning that the government has the right to make me shoot the deer I flush.
If you read the law it says that flushing out is only exempt hunting if the deer is flushed.
What is so sad about your position is that you do not agree with the law and are there fore forced to deny it is as it is.
What you woukld need to do is get the transcript of the original case. There you will see a precise description of what I do and the government's detailed argument that what I do is illegal unless I shoot the deer and why they think it should be illegal and the judges concurring with the government.
The case was then appealed and the judges upheld the original decision hence concurring with it.
If you read the law it says that flushing out is only exempt hunting if the deer is flushed.
What is so sad about your position is that you do not agree with the law and are there fore forced to deny it is as it is.
What you woukld need to do is get the transcript of the original case. There you will see a precise description of what I do and the government's detailed argument that what I do is illegal unless I shoot the deer and why they think it should be illegal and the judges concurring with the government.
The case was then appealed and the judges upheld the original decision hence concurring with it.
zigzagzig
Well-Known Member
I find it hard to understand why you're relying here on your claim in a court case, in fact three court cases, all of which you lost. The most important judges in the land disagreed with you.
You also seem to misunderstand how law works. What is binding on the lower courts is the judgment the Law Lords made relating to specific aspects of law, in this case relating to human rights and the European treaty. They made no judgment on how the Hunting Act 2004 should have been interpreted in the context of flushing out.
Your every reference to these cases is an own goal: it reminds us that you lost the argument and that it cost the CA an enormous amount of money in the process. It also puts a spotlight on the silly house of cards that is your obession about shooing deer away from spring shoots. The very slightest of breezes brings it all down and you, bless you, painstakingly rebuild it knowing that the next puff of wind will see it toppling yet again.
You also seem to misunderstand how law works. What is binding on the lower courts is the judgment the Law Lords made relating to specific aspects of law, in this case relating to human rights and the European treaty. They made no judgment on how the Hunting Act 2004 should have been interpreted in the context of flushing out.
Your every reference to these cases is an own goal: it reminds us that you lost the argument and that it cost the CA an enormous amount of money in the process. It also puts a spotlight on the silly house of cards that is your obession about shooing deer away from spring shoots. The very slightest of breezes brings it all down and you, bless you, painstakingly rebuild it knowing that the next puff of wind will see it toppling yet again.
Hebegebe
Well-Known Member
So do you think it is legal to flush out and chase deer with more than for dogs for fun or not?
There's lots of deer on exmoor I think I might head up there.
There's lots of deer on exmoor I think I might head up there.
zigzagzig
Well-Known Member
The answer is, it depends. It would be up to a judge to decide whether you were "hunting" within the terms of the Hunting Act 2004.
In the scenario which you usually use, that is scaring deer away from a copse because they're nibbling the shoots, I doubt whether this is hunting.
If, in the more extreme example you now present, you deliberately set your dogs on deer not to safeguard trees etc. but for your own personal gratification, I personally think that's irresponsible and rather cruel. It would be like deliberately worrying sheep with a dog just to get some kicks.
Whether this is "hunting" or not, I don't know, it would be for the judge to decide. I must say, though, that I find it surprising that a person who has represented the CA in the House of Lords would publicly admit to wanting to do such a thing.
In the scenario which you usually use, that is scaring deer away from a copse because they're nibbling the shoots, I doubt whether this is hunting.
If, in the more extreme example you now present, you deliberately set your dogs on deer not to safeguard trees etc. but for your own personal gratification, I personally think that's irresponsible and rather cruel. It would be like deliberately worrying sheep with a dog just to get some kicks.
Whether this is "hunting" or not, I don't know, it would be for the judge to decide. I must say, though, that I find it surprising that a person who has represented the CA in the House of Lords would publicly admit to wanting to do such a thing.
Bunce
Well-Known Member
Let's get one thing perfectly clear.
The Hunting Act is well thought out, clear and enforceable legislation.
We do not have to wait for a judge to decide what is illegal.
the law makes it perfectly clear that all hunting is illegal; and this includes flushing out deer.
Hunting has many stages all of which are illegal on there own.
These include flushing out, chasing, catching and killing.
There are tightly drawn conditions where flushing out is legal and these specify amongst others written permission, the use of two or less dogs and that the animals are shot as soon as possible.
Flushing out wild mammals with dogs for fun is NOT legal in ANY circumstances. It is a disgusting, cruel and barbaric activity.
What Giles is trying to do is make you admit that the law is unclear. He is also trying to cause division amongst antis by getting them to disagree about the law.
I tis generally recognised that flushing out with dogs is illegal; and should be so.
The law needs tightening to make it illegal in ALL circumstances and also to make accidental hunting illegal.
These amendments are forthcoming.
The Hunting Act is well thought out, clear and enforceable legislation.
We do not have to wait for a judge to decide what is illegal.
the law makes it perfectly clear that all hunting is illegal; and this includes flushing out deer.
Hunting has many stages all of which are illegal on there own.
These include flushing out, chasing, catching and killing.
There are tightly drawn conditions where flushing out is legal and these specify amongst others written permission, the use of two or less dogs and that the animals are shot as soon as possible.
Flushing out wild mammals with dogs for fun is NOT legal in ANY circumstances. It is a disgusting, cruel and barbaric activity.
What Giles is trying to do is make you admit that the law is unclear. He is also trying to cause division amongst antis by getting them to disagree about the law.
I tis generally recognised that flushing out with dogs is illegal; and should be so.
The law needs tightening to make it illegal in ALL circumstances and also to make accidental hunting illegal.
These amendments are forthcoming.
the watcher
Well-Known Member
Let's get one thing perfectly clear.
The Hunting Act is well thought out, clear and enforceable legislation.
*I imagine you may be the only person who thinks so*
We do not have to wait for a judge to decide what is illegal.
*the number of failed prosecutions and lack of clarity suggests exactly that*
These amendments are forthcoming.
*lets hope any amendments are based solely on animal welfare considerations, and not the agenda of politically motivated groups*
The Hunting Act is well thought out, clear and enforceable legislation.
*I imagine you may be the only person who thinks so*
We do not have to wait for a judge to decide what is illegal.
*the number of failed prosecutions and lack of clarity suggests exactly that*
These amendments are forthcoming.
*lets hope any amendments are based solely on animal welfare considerations, and not the agenda of politically motivated groups*
JanetGeorge
Well-Known Member
I wouldn't hold your breath! I doubt if Brown would DARE spend 5 more minutes of Parliamentary time on the Hunting Act - withe the country in debt up to its ears, unemployment spiralling - and the economy TOTALLY f**ked!
I really don't think this lame duck Government can afford to remind people it spent HOW many hundred hours of Parliamentary time on a flawed bill, while banking regulation was failing and the Government was already running up massive debt!!
Eagle_day
Well-Known Member
What absolute drivel. Is Peter Bunce at all sane? I doubt it: such an incredibly distorted view could only be held by someone who flaunts the POWA banner on this site - an organisation which thought it a good idea to harrass hunts with a gyrocopter. They appear to have such a tenuous hold on reality that, even after the appalling events in Warwickshire, they probably still do.
zigzagzig
Well-Known Member
"I wouldn't hold your breath! I doubt if Brown would DARE spend 5 more minutes of Parliamentary time on the Hunting Act - withe the country in debt up to its ears, unemployment spiralling - and the economy TOTALLY f**ked!"
And the answer to all of this, of course, is David Cameron, the economics guru who advised Norman Lamont in the period leading up to and including Black Wednesday.
But it doesn't matter whom we elect at the next election, as long as they repeal the ban.
Slightly blinkered in your priorities, maybe?
And the answer to all of this, of course, is David Cameron, the economics guru who advised Norman Lamont in the period leading up to and including Black Wednesday.
But it doesn't matter whom we elect at the next election, as long as they repeal the ban.
Slightly blinkered in your priorities, maybe?